Share this story

Texas' school board, which has waged an ongoing battle over science education (among other topics), is back at it. In 2009, a bruising battle created science standards that questioned common descent and the age of the universe. Since then, textbook publishers have attempted to craft science texts that implement Texas' standards.

That process has reached the point where the board invited outside experts to critique the textbooks. In keeping with the school board's history, that process has also gone badly astray. Rather than choosing scientific experts and educators, the school board chose two people (Walter Bradley and Raymond Bohlin) who have been involved in the Discovery Institute, the organization that has backed the intelligent design movement. Bradley in particular was involved in crafting the wedge document, which calls for a cultural effort to get rid of science's focus on natural causes in the hope that it would advance theistic views.

Another person asked to review the texts is Ide Trotter, a retired engineer. He's a key figure in a group called Texans for Better Science Education. That group's URL, strengthsandweaknesses.org, echoes language that was specifically removed from the standards because it is used to enable religiously motivated attacks on evolution education. With the exception of two works by Darwin, the group's recommended books are all products of the Discovery Institute. (We reviewed one and found it to be largely unscientific.)

The Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for separation of church and state (among other causes), has now used the state's Public Information Act to request the results of this group's textbook reviews. And they're about what you'd expect and, most likely, what some members of the school board were hoping for.

In the evaluation of one textbook, a reviewer openly advocated for introducing religion into the science classroom. "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is considered for adoption. Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

A push for creationism was also made in subtler terms. For instance, one reviewer suggests, "The fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification. Text should ask students to analyze and compare alternative theories." The "alternative theories" were left unstated.

The reviews also indicated some basic misunderstandings of biology. There was a suggestion that genetic drift was not a mechanism of evolution and that one standard definition of evolution (change over time) was invalid. Another questioned the existence of transitional fossils.

These reviews suggest that the battle over science education in Texas is far from over. The state is unlikely to try something as blatantly unconstitutional as demanding the teaching of creationism, but the reviews may give them another opportunity to try to undercut science education while inserting unscientific criticisms of evolution.

Promoted Comments

I taught high school science for several years in a Houston public school before I went back to graduate school last year. Couple of thoughts on this:

First, I really think we overestimate the importance of these battles at the state level. While my sample is only the district I taught in and the teachers I know from other districts, these battles really don't actually affect what happens in the classroom. It really is more up to the district, school and individual teacher. If a teacher wants to raise doubts about common descent in his or her classroom, that teacher can. If he or she doesn't, s/he won't. That fact probably upsets everyone, but that really is what happens. Tweaking the TEKS (standards) isn't going to change that much. Frankly, for high school biology, what really is going to drive what is emphasized in the classroom is what is on the state end-of-course exam. I have seen example questions from the new end of course exams along with the previous iteration of exit exams. Common descent is not viewed as in doubt for the purposes of those exams.

Second, there is a lot of concern about textbooks here and how these changes will impact them. I can tell you, I rarely used a textbook in my classroom. Same goes for all the other teachers that I worked with. From chatting with other high school science teachers in other districts, that seems to be the case for them as well. Generally, we used our own materials. So based on my experience, we shouldn't get too nervous about the textbooks.

Third, I do get concerned that we not get so upset about this as to say, "we can't discuss this issue in school." Many of my students came from actively Christian or Muslim backgrounds. I personally am a practicing Christian who attends church every week. I also think that evolution is the theory that best accounts for the diversity of life and is what needs to be taught in science classrooms. If students asked me about how to deal with their faith and what we were discussing in class, I would do my best to listen to where they were coming from. When a class wanted to have a broader discussion about it, I would let students state their opinions while also clearly emphasizing the scientific consensus. I think we need to make sure, somewhere, that a discussion can happen in our classrooms. It's really tricky to do so. But if we don't, many kids could be driven away from science because they'll decide that they must choose between science or living out what they are taught in their homes and houses of worship. I don't think that has to be the case.

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is considered for adoption.

As long as they're dimwitted enough to use language like that in their official documents this nonsense will be easy to challenge (though a PITA for all concerned). What I'm most worried about is that they'll start to get clever and avoid direct references to ancient mythology - 'teach the controversy' style.

Dismissing science is an excuse for conservatism, masking laziness, complacency, and an inflated sense of self. A law simply validates and justifies this dumbness. Maybe global warming will hit Texas as hard as it already has Oklahoma.

I'm not a textbook publisher, but if I were I'd prefer not to dumb down my books just for Texas and make them more likely to be useless to every other state. Stop selling to Texas. In a generation or so, their own stupidity will make them the laughing stock (more so) of the US and unemployable outside of Texas.

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

You do know that goes both ways don't you? From a scientific standpoint, there are no universal truths, only what people accept after careful experimentation to come to the same result after many, many iterations. I have yet to see an experiment where Evolution has been proven true, and likewise I have never seen an experiment where Creationism has been proven true. I have only ever seen evidence and arguments from both groups. I think it is critical that those who are pushing to 'abolish creationism' in textbooks so to speak seriously consider their reasons behind it. Is it the deep-seeded hatred that many (not all, but many) scientists have against 'Christians' or creationists or even those who oppose their views? Or is it because they simply believe that their evidence so absolutely and irrefutably points to evolution being so obviously correct and creation so obviously wrong that they need to ensure that the future generations ONLY follow one theory?

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

There is extensive evidence for the theory of Evolution. There is no evidence for the theory of Creationism. See how that works?

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

My concern is we might end up with Biology teachers educated at Liberty University who would actually teach "creationism" as if it were real science.

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

You do know that goes both ways don't you? From a scientific standpoint, there are no universal truths, only what people accept after careful experimentation to come to the same result after many, many iterations. I have yet to see an experiment where Evolution has been proven true, and likewise I have never seen an experiment where Creationism has been proven true. I have only ever seen evidence and arguments from both groups. I think it is critical that those who are pushing to 'abolish creationism' in textbooks so to speak seriously consider their reasons behind it. Is it the deep-seeded hatred that many (not all, but many) scientists have against 'Christians' or creationists or even those who oppose their views? Or is it because they simply believe that their evidence so absolutely and irrefutably points to evolution being so obviously correct and creation so obviously wrong that they need to ensure that the future generations ONLY follow one theory?

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

There is extensive evident for the theory of Evolution. There is no evidence for the theory of Creationism. See how that works?

No, I don't really. I think it's obvious now as to what side I align myself with. The issue is you (or more appropriately scientists in general) refuse to examine any evidence towards creationism. The way I see it, I find it extremely hard to believe that this world could be created by accident. I find evidence of intelligent design everywhere, from the basic biological systems and chemical reactions to the interactions of animals and the advanced nature of the human race. Additionally, I'm curious, how do you explain thought and consciousness?

You don't see how that works? You don't understand the Scientific Method? If so then you have no right discussing matters of science.

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

You do know that goes both ways don't you? From a scientific standpoint, there are no universal truths, only what people accept after careful experimentation to come to the same result after many, many iterations. I have yet to see an experiment where Evolution has been proven true, and likewise I have never seen an experiment where Creationism has been proven true. I have only ever seen evidence and arguments from both groups. I think it is critical that those who are pushing to 'abolish creationism' in textbooks so to speak seriously consider their reasons behind it. Is it the deep-seeded hatred that many (not all, but many) scientists have against 'Christians' or creationists or even those who oppose their views? Or is it because they simply believe that their evidence so absolutely and irrefutably points to evolution being so obviously correct and creation so obviously wrong that they need to ensure that the future generations ONLY follow one theory?

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

There is extensive evident for the theory of Evolution. There is no evidence for the theory of Creationism. See how that works?

No, I don't really. I think it's obvious now as to what side I align myself with. The issue is you (or more appropriately scientists in general) refuse to examine any evidence towards creationism. The way I see it, I find it extremely hard to believe that this world could be created by accident. I find evidence of intelligent design everywhere, from the basic biological systems and chemical reactions to the interactions of animals and the advanced nature of the human race. Additionally, I'm curious, how do you explain thought and consciousness?

&quot;Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'&quot;

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was &quot;Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy&quot;.[/quote]

You do know that goes both ways don't you? From a scientific standpoint, there are no universal truths, only what people accept after careful experimentation to come to the same result after many, many iterations. I have yet to see an experiment where Evolution has been proven true, and likewise I have never seen an experiment where Creationism has been proven true. I have only ever seen evidence and arguments from both groups. I think it is critical that those who are pushing to 'abolish creationism' in textbooks so to speak seriously consider their reasons behind it. Is it the deep-seeded hatred that many (not all, but many) scientists have against 'Christians' or creationists or even those who oppose their views? Or is it because they simply believe that their evidence so absolutely and irrefutably points to evolution being so obviously correct and creation so obviously wrong that they need to ensure that the future generations ONLY follow one theory?

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.[/quote]

Dude, you are fucking insane. Go masturbate in the corner. It's a shame that people like you cannot be conveniently and legally eliminated from the gene pool. For goodness sake, stop being such a damn lunatic and actually read!

Science has actually progressed since the 13th century ya know!! Oh hell, what's the use…

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

You need to review the definition of theory. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis.

No, I don't really. I think it's obvious now as to what side I align myself with. The issue is you (or more appropriately scientists in general) refuse to examine any evidence towards creationism. The way I see it, I find it extremely hard to believe that this world could be created by accident. I find evidence of intelligent design everywhere, from the basic biological systems and chemical reactions to the interactions of animals and the advanced nature of the human race. Additionally, I'm curious, how do you explain thought and consciousness?

Yes, it's obvious you align yourself with Bible beaters who have no understanding of the scientific method, or who don't care to see it employed.

The reason the other poster isn't interested in examining evidence towards creationism is because there IS NOT ANY. None. Nada. Nyet. Zilch. Zero. The Bible is not evidence; it is a theology book, not a science book.

You ASSUME evidence based on your observations. Your assumptions are not proof; you must submit them to vigorous, detailed observation and experimentation, and allow for the possibility for your ideas to be wrong in part or in total before you even come close to it being science. Science, on the other hand, has extensively researched the evolution of species through direct observation and experimentation; it's explanations hold up very well over time with only minor tweaks as new information is incorporated into the body of knowledge already gathered.

Science is still uncovering what thought and consciousness is, which is more than you've done. You simply accept what ONE book tells you, in a very unscientific way, and give it no critical thought or review. You do not challenge or question what you believe are the conclusions of this theology, and your only rebuttal to science is to attack the credibility of the science because you know you cannot subject your own views to that scientific process and conclusively prove your views are correct.

Creationism in Texas. One giant leap for one small state... backwards. Ah! They've got oil, so what do they care if future generations cannot readily get employment in other states wanting to fill scientific and engineering positions?

Dude, you are fucking insane. Go masturbate in the corner. It's a shame that people like you cannot be conveniently and legally eliminated from the gene pool. For goodness sake, stop being such a damn lunatic and actually read!

Science has actually progressed since the 13th century ya know!! Oh hell, what's the use…

While I agree with your general point, your delivery is reprehensible. It's intellectually and morally lazy to dehumanize anyone with whom you disagree like that, as well as notably ineffective at encouraging any kind of civil discourse.

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

You need to review the definition of theory. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis.

I don't think Creationism even goes that far. When you make a hypothesis, you are asking a question.

Creationists just flat out make a bold claim, then refuse to do any science to back it up. They just point to the Bible.

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

You need to review the definition of theory. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis.

Quirks of the english language. I believe I meant it along the lines: "Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works," which is how I view the theory of Evolution. You probably meant "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

Then you shouldn't teach both as theories because you will be putting them both in same level of proof. Make clear one is a theory and other is belief.

"Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

Since there isn't any actual evidence for 'creation science', I would indeed encourage students to look at it critically.

Done right, that could actually be a very useful pedagogical exercise. The odds of it being done right are, of course, tiny given that what the reviewer really wanted to write was "Teach creationism and not that ungodly evolutionism heresy".

You do know that goes both ways don't you? From a scientific standpoint, there are no universal truths, only what people accept after careful experimentation to come to the same result after many, many iterations. I have yet to see an experiment where Evolution has been proven true, and likewise I have never seen an experiment where Creationism has been proven true. I have only ever seen evidence and arguments from both groups. I think it is critical that those who are pushing to 'abolish creationism' in textbooks so to speak seriously consider their reasons behind it. Is it the deep-seeded hatred that many (not all, but many) scientists have against 'Christians' or creationists or even those who oppose their views? Or is it because they simply believe that their evidence so absolutely and irrefutably points to evolution being so obviously correct and creation so obviously wrong that they need to ensure that the future generations ONLY follow one theory?

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

There is extensive evident for the theory of Evolution. There is no evidence for the theory of Creationism. See how that works?

No, I don't really. I think it's obvious now as to what side I align myself with. The issue is you (or more appropriately scientists in general) refuse to examine any evidence towards creationism. The way I see it, I find it extremely hard to believe that this world could be created by accident. I find evidence of intelligent design everywhere, from the basic biological systems and chemical reactions to the interactions of animals and the advanced nature of the human race. Additionally, I'm curious, how do you explain thought and consciousness?

The really cool thing is that evolutions random events over long periods of time will occur wheather you beleive in them or not. On the other hand if everyone stopped beleiving in religion it would go away.

We do not need mythology. If we keep on paths like this, we will have no scientists in 50 years. I open open to scientific dispute not claims of fact based on books written 2,000 years ago. (By the way, I know it was 2,000 years ago because of carbon dating).